What did I think of the DFLP course?

Listen to my thoughts HERE!

cheers, rachel

Group Meeting

FOR DISCUSSION AND ADDITION! 

Models/Inspiration:
 ART 214: Intro to Time-based and Digital Media interesting class blog set up and incorporating student posts. (Do we set up a class blog and is it just for the lecturers to access/post assignments etc. or would it be collaborative with the students? If not, would students set up their own blog?)
Designing for Flexible Learning Practice | Otago Polytechnic Blog example of a staff only blog that posted class disucssions, assignments, comments etc. and included a timetable/calendar and links to class participants blogs..
UPDATE – EVEN BETTER: dESIGNING FOR fLEXIBLE lEARNING pRACTICE wiki | oTAGO pOLYTECHNIC  Thank you to Leigh Blackall for pointing out that the Flexible Learning Practice no longer uses the blog as previous post, but has moved onto a wiki format…It would appear that this has more freedom and is easier to use than the blog format which can have quite restrictive templates…in fact – i am itching to get onto wikieducator and get started! Thanks EDC!
Here’s another good example by Otago Polytechnic…and here’s the info about its origins.
Link to Important Readings Specifically the Siggraph and Danny Butt papers.

Reading List for students(and staff!):
Creative Review Blog (UK)
Window: Scene//Electronic Art, New Media and Culture (NZ)
Wired Magazine – Listening Post: Sound Blog
Wired Magazine – Compiler: Software/Technology Blog
Wired Magazine: Art Blog

Training: Useful sites to send students to for back up help and/or homework/self-directed assignments.
www.lynda.com
www.russellbrown.com
www.webmonkey.com

Programme (content|timetable|assignments)
12 weeks
1234 | Rachel | Project 1 | assignments…
5678 | David | Project 2 | assignments
9,10,11,12 | Rodney | Project 3 |assignments

QUESTIONS: what are our aims? what skills do we want the students to have when they emerge?
——–
FYI

this paper (FA111001 Fine Arts Core Studies 1) is a Level 5, compulsory paper for 20 credits. This means there is a total learning time of 200 hours (100 taught hours, 100 self-directed)

however, this paper is made of three components of which Digital Literacy is only 1, making its component 33hours taught time, 33hours self-directed. (IS THIS STILL CORRECT – THIS IS 2.75 tth/WEEK for 12 weeks…?)

Core Studies 1 is then followed by Core Studies 2 in the first year of the BFA, and then Core Studies 3 + 4 in year 2 which are both level 6, compulsory papers and all are 20 credits as above.

WE NEED TO DISCUSS: 

PAPER DESCRIPTOR: (FROM 2007)

• GENERAL AIM AND RATIONALE : “To provide students with:
  • a project-based study of the principles of studio experimentation and research in the fine arts
  • an introduction to the key historical moments, theories and artworks in the modernist era
  • an introduction to key methodologies in research and documentation
  • extended experience in the key methodologies of drawing, in particular drawings’ relationship with research
  • an introduction to The Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the visual arts
  • an introduction to the ways in which material and conceptual exploration may be integrated in the field of visual arts
  • an introduction to digital literacy in a range of digital programmes“

 I would like to DISCUSS the following rationale, which are a breakdown of the above (but not already in the paper descriptor):

• an understanding of fundamental principles and professional issues relating to digital literacy
• an understanding of core hardware and software components and their potential application in the visual arts
• an introduction to practical skills in image, sound and time-based digital media software with an understanding of their relationship to contemporary arts practice

LEARNING OUTCOMES:(taken from the paper directive): “At the completion of this paper students will be able to:

• Think critically
• demonstrate research skills in response to a brief
• demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and how they apply in an arts context
• use a range of digital programmes and understand their relation to and usefulness for art and writing processes
• select and use appropriate methodologies for studio and theoretical research
• document studio work
• document research
• use the internet as a research tool
• save, record and present information
• use contemporary digital documentation practices
• have gained experience in drawing the human figure, drawing from life in 2d and 3d
• understand and be able to use perspective
• make maquettes
• practice reflectively
• work co-operatively
• communicate effectively

ASSIGNMENTS?

Project 1
- start a blog which will act as a workbook for this course (all following assignments should be uploaded to your blog for assessment)
- join a newsfeeder and subscribe to the resources recommended by the programme
- join the class e-mail group and post an interesting article/internet find/video etc at least once during the project (1) and comment on at least 3 other posts during the project (1)
- del.icio.us tags? (e.g. http://del.icio.us/tags/flexiblelearning)
- learn how to scan an image/or other document…
- learn how to use an online photo gallery to upload images to link to, or find images to use  (e.g. flickr, photobucket, picasa)
- learn how to make basic image manipulations in Photoshop (e.g. crop/rotate/size…other)
- what is file resolution/are file formats suitable for images/and why?
- then work out how to do the same edits in another image manipulation software (e.g. free software such as GIMP/Picasa)

Main Project (1) 
-to work in groups
-to curate an online exhibition from ‘found’ and created images (only images?) centred round a chosen/given (?) theme…
-to present the exhibition online in an appropriate format
-to post a link to the exhibition on your blog
-to post a written evaluation of the exhibition choices and results on your blog including an evauation of the experience of working in a group

Lectures/Workshops
- Copyright, Creative Commons Licensing, IP
- Electronic Art?
- socially networked world?
- Beginners Photoshop
- Scanning
…..

i’m tired, can’t wait to start discussing these things…

Infrastructure | Applications | Environment

I noticed this Technology Fundamentals Programme that the Otago Polytechnic Diploma in Interactive Multimedia Development (IMD) deliver to their first year students. Their are many crossovers to the Digital Literacy Programme we are thinking about in the School of Art, but interestingly their emphasis is on the computer components and software, before any ethical or contextual issues are addressed. We are looking at working these similar ideas in the opposite direction.

Also of note is their use of the words Infrastructure, Applications and Environment…do these relate to Access, Interpret, Create? I believe they do!

Presentation

Access | Interpret | Create

 I have been alerted to another group of researchers at Otago Polytechnic who are looking at building resources for “Digital Information Literacy“
Their work so far is held on this wikiversity page

We had a meeting this week about the development of Core Studies 1 – Digital Literacy and discussed the impact of this information on our course design and vice versa.

I believe that we can add to this resource and use parts of it in our teaching, and for our students to access.

We really liked the words: ACCESS | INTERPRET | CREATE
(far better than our effort in a similar vein – aquisition, application, development…rubbish!)

We see these words as integrated throughout the paper, but that the emphasis of each area will be more or less depending on the stage the student is working at, with the idea that towards the end, as they have learnt more skills, they will be creating, more than aquiring new skills (access)

I attempted to put this into a table/image of sorts (access_interpret_create.pdf )against our 5 core areas of curriculum, to try and show that as one progresses through the papers (1-4), although you are doing some of each core, to begin with, you are doing more accessing and less creating, more of core area 1 and less of core area 5. And this turns around as you progress to the opposite ends of the scale.

Our main point of difference is that we need to quickly relate the digital literacy skills and knowledge to visual arts practice and teach skills most suitable to potential arts practice, so our paper veers towards this strand quite quickly and works to include more generic digital literacy information with specific arts related digital practice.

Response to Matt Thomson’s Evaluation

I responded to Matt Thomson’s evaluation plan on Blackboard, but in doing so found out a few things that I will now consider for my own evaluation. This has been a good exercise for that reason. (p.s. Matt’s original evaluation plan isn’t on his blog yet, but hopefully it will be soon.)
Below is my response.

Hi Matt,

I thought I would respond to your post – I see that it is similar in many ways to mine, so it’s quite difficult to look at  in this way… I thought I would focus on your points of difference, and in this way, expand my own learning.
———————–
You discuss using triangulation as a methodology for collecting and analysing data. In his book Doing Qualitative Research, David Silverman makes a concise and clear analysis of the pros and cons of doing so. He argues that many qualitative researchers believe that triangulation provides more reliable results than any single method, but warns against some of its pitfalls. He suggests that its success may depend on your analytical framework (Silverman, 2005) and should you choose to work in this way you set out the following, clear guidelines:

• “Always begin from a theoretical perspective or model
• Choose methods and data which will give you an account of structure and meaning from within that perspective (e.g. by showing the structured contexts of the interactions studied.)” (Silverman, 2005)

He surmises the chapter with a preference for the single method:

“It is usually far better to celebrate the partiality of your data and delight in the particular phenomena that it allows you to inspect (hopefully in detail).”

I feel that because in this instance,  you would be analysing different parts of your overall design and working with different groups of people that triangulation may be the most suitable choice of methodology, as long as you have in mind the ways in which you might analyse the diverse data it yields during the evaluation stage.

Later on you discuss what methods you would use to collect your data, and similar to my own evaluation you have turned to the some of the OP methods already in play, and that are readily available to us, such as BB, and paper questionnaire forms. I wonder, if in light of the complex nature of triangulation, that there is some way of streamlinging these methods so that they are easily referenced, or as Silverman suggests, you agree on a set framework for analysis before deploying any of them.
I also wondered about  taping, visually, or aurally, any focus groups you might get together in order to keep data for analysis. I believe that this is problematic in itself, as people can feel uneasy faced with such permanent technologies, adn don’t feel as free to speak. However, a note take may be impartial, framing what is recorded to favour one outcome or another, (without intention!) and therefore not allowing your data to be left open to different types of interpretation, in light of some of your other results.

One thing that occurs to me, is that I find it can be difficult to get students to fill in (endless) questionnaire forms. This of course depends on many things: the individuals in the class; the time of year; the way you ’sell’ it to them. I have been looking at Learning Contracts as a potential method to work with some of our students who can often feel a little disenfranchised between year 2 and year 4 of the BFA. This is a  transitional year, where the students are encouraged to be self-directed with the skills they have so far learnt, developing both their practice and their own ability to co-ordinate that development. In Using Learning Contracts in Higher Education, Laycock and Stephenson state that “there is much evidence from student, teacher and employer testimony that involving students in the design of their own programmes of study improves the quality of their learning, increases motivation, promotes understanding of fundamentals and focuses student attention on the wider relevance of their studies.” (Laycock and Stephenson, 1993) I propose here that this could be a possible methodology for structuring focus groups that involces the stakeholders that you mention above.

Once again, I hope that this provides you with some more information that will help with your evaluation process. I think that your evaluation plan is strong, reliable and well-rounded, and importantly has a good balance of investment/reward. Good luck with the course!

 

—————————
REFERENCES:
Silverman, D. Doing Qualitative Research Sage Publications, London (2005)
Laycock, M., and Stephenson, J. Using Learning Contracts in Higher Education Kogan Page, London (1993)

Evaluation Plan

How will you evaluate the success of your new course design?

I see the evaluation of the new course design as one that has started already. Everything from the start of the analysis for the need for the course, its learners, its context, its technology and resources has been thought about, researched, reflected on and evaluated. I believe this gives it a strong backbone. Further evaluation such as pre-moderation before the course goes live and meetings and discussion with stakeholders will take place to ensure that the course is in-line with the Paper’s Aim and Rationale and Learning Outcomes. As we see this paper as a core to all the other subjects that students may go on to Major in later years, it will be important to have the feedback of those studio lecturers both before the course goes live, during and after as /if they notice a difference in the abilities or understanding of their students.
Post delivery of the first run of the course, student feedback and results will also be used as an indication of successes and areas for development.

Who will you ask to review your design before it goes live?

- The lecturers involved in the drawing and art theory sections of the same paper will be asked to meet to discuss the design of the digital literacy component.
-the Head of the School of Art will also be asked to be part of this group.
-it would be great to get the students who have just completed the BFA year 1 without this course (that we view as essential to their core learning) to discuss their own opinions of it. (could this be a possiblea conflict though of learning they think they may have missed out on?)

How will you monitor its success as you use it, and at the end of the first offering?

-success during the paper will be monitored formatively by lecturers who will:
-meet regularly to discuss how the paper is going
-ensure that students are on task and not struggling, or finishing tasks too quickly
-get informal feedback from the students about this, and ensure there is an open forum for students to make comment in this way

-at the end of the paper, success will be measured through:
-Otago Polytechnic questionnaires filled in by students
-a formal discussion group with students
-student results
-meeting of the lecturers from the whole paper

What criteria will you use to judge its success?

-have students achieved the learning outcomes as shown in the submission of their assignments?
-have students responded positively to the course content, the course lecturer(s)

How will you gather your data?

-questionnaire (a more comprehensive questionnaire will be created than the standard course one that specifically engages answers about this course)
-comment forum (possibly Blackboard)
-discussion forum (possibly blackboard and face-to-face, which may be recorded for future study)
-student marks/statistics

What will you do with the information obtained?

The information obtained will all go into the re-development of the course for both the second run and into the later papers that stem off from this one in the student’s next 18 months. Lecturers developing the materials will meet to discuss and rigorously assess the effectiveness of the structure, tasks, theories and practicalities of the course delivered, and implement ways in which the course can be improved to enable further learning.

Implementation Plan

My implementation plan can be found here.

I chose to use Google Page Creator, as it is a software that I very minimally visited last year but never really developed anything substantial out of. I wanted to have a chance to develop a real project with it to see if I could push its potential…

Proposed Learning Objects, Media and Activites

Issues:

1. We are working from the core idea of “digital literacy” related to arts practice up (and not starting with software)
2. We need to cater for students who are enter the programme with different skill-sets (software), yet ensure all students come out with the same core understanding (pass certain markers) at Level 5.

I propose that the course base is designed along the following ideas relating to digital literacy and in-line with the proposed learning outcomes for the whole paper: (some of these are adapted from the Siggraph Education Knowledge Base and in conjunction with Su Ballard, Academic Leader Theory and History of Art, Otago Polytechnic)

1. Fundamentals of digital literacy and professional issues
   1. vocabulary
   2. hardware
   3. software
   4. representation
   5. ethical issues
   6. intellectual property
   7. copyright/fair use/licensing
2. Networks
   1. hardware and networking
   2. input and output devices
   3. storage/file sizes/filing
   4. www
   5. e-mail
   6. socially connected software
3. Digital Image
   1. applications and implications
   2. image processing
   3. image compression
   4. graphics/file formats
   5. digital cameras/scanning
   6. manipulation software and application
   7. output
4. Digital Sound
   1. applications to art practice
   2. input
   3. file formats/file compression
   4. output
5. Time-Based Visual Arts
   1. applications and implications
   2. video input/editing/output
   3. animation

These then become the building blocks for seminars and for tasks to be designed that enable the learning of the core ideals with the application of software. To achieve this there will need to be set seminars to introduce the context of each area, set classes to teach the basic software skills, and then drop-in sessions that support the student working out how to apply the skills to the task.

In order to ensure that students are passing each marker succesfuly the tasks will be for completion throughout the paper through the completion of a hard copy workbook and internet blog. This will allow students who feel comfortable with the technology to move on ahead, completing the tasks and allow lecturers to ensure that those who are learning fro the first time are not falling behind. It will als oprovide students with a valuable resource to dip into throughout their BFA.

Existing Learning Activites Critically Reviewed – Revision

I currently teach Photoshop software skills to senior BFA photography students, and earlier this year I taught a paper called DC2 – Digital, for Year 1 Design Communication students at Otago Polytechnic. I went through a Postgraduate Diploma in Multimedia Technology at Napier University, Edinburgh, UK in 2001/02. It is partly from this knowledge that I am drawing some of the following points for consideration in the development of this new Paper for the BFA at School of Art.

When I was taught Multimedia Technology it was specifically software based. I had come through a Bachelor of Arts and was specifically looking for Multimedia Technology as it related to arts practice, but I did not get this. (I admit to my own naivety in assuming that I would!) Furthermore, the sheer amount of upskilling that I was required to do in order to simply learn the software was enormous and thus application based teaching led the way. What did work well in some ways was a hard-copy workbook that contained assignments for the whole programme, which we filled in along the way for submission at the end of a semester along with a CD-rom of applicable files and a link to a website containing other files for submission. Towards the end of the semester is became clear how the integration of the software though the build up of these tasks was achieved, allowing a further understanding of context and more wordly view of the application of multimedia technologies. Another plus was that this was then an excellent, personal resource to dip in and out of after its completion for further projects and applications. This was however by no means a perfect way of working. There was little understanding at the beginning of the purpose of the workbook, and its relation to the class projects and assignments, and no attempt to explain this further. One thing I always do when teaching Photoshop is explain it’s relationship to what one would need to use it for in a photographic world, and the connection of each skill being taught to similar or alternative ones. There was also way too much work for the intended deadline, and therefore, I believe, little understanding/memory from the teaching staff of what it was like to source the answers to each question with little aid, when it is a very new subject.

Having taught the DC2-digital paper recently, I am now aware of some thinking here at OP of what sorts of things might be taught at this level. This paper covered the teaching of Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign (All Adobe Creative Suite software) to the integration of a designed poster. It covered a little bit of typography theory, basic composition and some informal discussion of copyright. However, the paper was only 12 taught hours with students which was an incredibly short time-frame to teach understanding across these three distinct software packages. Although the intention was only to teach specific parts of each software programme there was a distinct need by the students to learn and understand the context of each, which there was little time for. I believe that this was a conflict partly caused by the development of the paper from a software-centred approach rather than contextualising the need to learn skills in software for Design Practice.
Other problems occurred with the disparity in computer skills previously acquired by the learners. This is something I envisage the learners will come with in the new BFA paper and something we will need to address accordingly. I believe that a well planned timetable of compulsory participation classes and optional/drop-in ones for specific skills will be a way to achieve this. This is of course also fraught with other problems. Students at this stage are not yet very self-motivated and so the idea of an ‘optional’ class will need to be administered carefully. I think it could work if the optional classes, run alongside compulsory ‘project’ classes where students are expected to complete their workbook tasks which develop the integration of practical skills with theory and problem-solving (i.e. context). This would mean that anyone who did not have the requisite practical skills would not be able to complete these tasks, and would be picked up by lecturers and asked to attend the relevant practical sessions. This implies a very hands-on role by the lecturer’s and attention will need to be made to the implications of this resourcing.